The plans described a bus every 30 minutes. What does King Edwin Park have now?
The original plan
A bus link from Jennyfields was planned. The signed 2015 planning agreement described a bus every 30 minutes, 07:00 to 19:00, seven days a week.
What followed
The public records reviewed do not show the planned bus link operating for buses. Route 4 began serving the estate in April 2024, initially about once an hour.
The position now
The drawings approved in 2025 remove bus access from the planned link. A walking and cycling path was observed open in October 2026. Since 19 July 2026, Route 4 has 7 buses a day, Monday to Friday, at King Edwin Park, up to 2 hours 31 minutes apart. As in 2024, no Sunday journeys are listed.
How often does Route 4 serve King Edwin Park, and how long are the gaps?
See how the service changed See today’s timetable
Independent of the Council, the developer and the bus operator · Planning status and Route 4 timetable checked 5 November 2026 · What is still unanswered
1 · The bus service
How did the bus service change?
Four points in the record: what was described in 2015, what started in 2024, what changed in 2026 and what runs now.
-
2015 · Signed planning agreement
Every 30 minutes
described: 07:00 to 19:00, Monday to Sunday
The original plans proposed extending the Number 3 bus into the estate. The signed Section 106 agreement, a legal deal with the councils, describes a “Bus Service” to Harrogate town centre every 30 minutes. The developer was to make five annual payments of £130,000 towards it. The former North Yorkshire County Council was to buy the service and make sure it ran for at least five years, unless the parties agreed otherwise in writing.
Signed agreement The service it describes · The County Council’s part · The Number 3 proposal
-
April 2024 · Route 4 begins
About once an hour
13 buses a day, Monday to Friday, at King Edwin Park
The Council’s Route 4 timetables from April and September 2024, kept by the Internet Archive, show 13 buses each day from Monday to Friday and 13 on Saturdays at King Edwin Park, mostly about an hour apart. No Sunday journeys are shown in those timetables. Persimmon, the developer, says it worked with the Council to agree an alternative bus service.
Council timetables (archived) The 2024 timetables · Persimmon’s account
-
July 2026 · A cut is recorded
Reduced to about one bus every two hours
6 on Saturdays; no Sunday Route 4 journeys are listed, as in 2024
Killinghall Parish Council’s draft minutes of 6 July 2026 record a plan to reduce Route 4 to about one bus every two hours. The new timetable took effect on 19 July, with uneven gaps of up to 2 hours 31 minutes. The published copies of the 6 July and 5 October minutes are marked “UNAPPROVED”, as checked on 5 November 2026. In the 5 October minutes, a North Yorkshire councillor (called a County Councillor in the minutes) said the service cost about £275,000 a year and the reduction was intended to lower that cost to about £174,000. The councillor said they would seek passenger figures. This is one councillor’s account. The public records checked did not give the Council’s full reasons for the cut.
Parish Council draft minutes The change and reported cost reason · A councillor’s concern about school drop-off times
-
From 19 July 2026 · The current timetable
7 buses a day, Monday to Friday
at King Edwin Park, up to 2 hours 31 minutes apart
On Saturdays there are 6, and the first gap is 2 hours 55 minutes. As in the 2024 timetables, no Sunday Route 4 journeys are listed.
Council timetable Every time, with its stop
What the difference means, and what it doesn’t
In plain terms: the 2015 agreement described two buses an hour. Route 4 started at about one an hour. For much of the day now there is about one every two hours. As in 2024, no Sunday journeys are listed.
The agreement shows what was specified for the bus service the developer’s payments were to fund. The timetables show what was actually scheduled. The records reviewed do not show whether Route 4 counts as that “Bus Service”, whether a different service was agreed in writing, or where the payments and the five-year minimum now stand. So an hourly bus was less frequent than the one described; whether it met the agreement is a separate, open question.
Whatever the answer, the practical question remains whether today’s service is useful for everyday journeys, whether or not the original link is ever built. What is not known about the service
2 · Today’s timetable
How often does Route 4 serve King Edwin Park?
Under the timetable introduced on 19 July 2026, Route 4 has seven scheduled buses each day from Monday to Friday at King Edwin Park, with gaps of up to 2 hours 31 minutes between them.
Route 4 at a glance · published timetable from 19 July 2026 · times at King Edwin Park
- Monday to Friday
- 7 scheduled buses each day, first 06:31, last 18:08
- Saturday
- 6 scheduled buses, first 07:32, last 18:07; the first gap is 2 hours 55 minutes
- Sunday
- No Route 4 journeys appear in the published timetable
- Route
- Harrogate bus station, the Hydro, the Army Foundation College and King Edwin Park
Every time, with the stop it is printed for: the timetable entry on the sources page. The Council also lists S3, a school-days bus with one journey each way.
Route 4 from 19 July 2026, Monday to Friday · drawn to scale
See these times as a table
| Leaves Harrogate bus station | Timetabled at King Edwin Park | Gap to the next bus at King Edwin Park |
|---|---|---|
| 06:15 | 06:31 | 1 h 01 min |
| 07:15 | 07:32 | 2 h 25 min |
| 09:40 | 09:57 | 2 h 30 min |
| 12:10 | 12:27 | 2 h 00 min |
| 14:10 | 14:27 | 2 h 31 min |
| 16:40 | 16:58 | 1 h 10 min |
| 17:50 | 18:08 | last bus on this table |
Why the gaps matter
When buses are more than two hours apart, missing one can mean a long wait, and a trip has to be planned around the timetable.
That can make shift work, medical appointments, college, childcare and train connections harder to arrange for anyone who relies on the bus. In Killinghall Parish Council’s 5 October draft minutes, a parish councillor said Route 4 departure times did not suit parents dropping children at secondary school. The published copy is marked “UNAPPROVED”, as checked on 5 November 2026; this is one councillor’s report, not a survey of parents. Read the report and its source.
Reading the timetable
- The highlighted 14:27 to 16:58 gap is the longest weekday gap: 2 hours 31 minutes. The 09:57 to 12:27 gap is 2 hours 30 minutes.
- Harrogate bus station is a separate stop. The same buses leave it at 09:40 and 12:10, and at 14:10 and 16:40, each 2 hours 30 minutes apart.
- Route 4 is a later, different service from the Number 3 that the original plan proposed.
- This timetable took effect on 19 July 2026. The Council’s timetable listed from 31 August 2025 was not found, so the chart cannot show what the service was like when the officer reported in October 2025.
What was recorded in 2025
When a planning officer approved the 2025 change, the report relied partly on the bus already serving the first part of the estate:
Planning officer’s report · 1 October 2025
“…the existing bus service loop to phase 1 which runs regularly to the town centre is stated to be sufficient within the submitted documents.”
The report concludes the change is “not considered to be a demonstrable loss of services”. It does not name the route; Persimmon says it was Route 4. Open the 2025 application’s Documents tab (HGTZC25/01014/DVCMAJ); find “OFFICER REPORT” (published 1 Oct 2025), “Assessment”
An archived copy of the Council’s page, captured on 17 October 2025, showed a Route 4 timetable listed as effective from 31 August. The officer’s report is dated 1 October. The timetable itself could not be found, so the public record does not show what was scheduled when the plans were assessed. The current timetable has long gaps. That does not by itself make the 2025 decision wrong, but it is reasonable to ask whether the current service is enough.
Sources: the 2025 officer’s report · the 2024 and 2025 timetable listings
3 · The bus link
Where was the bus link meant to go?
The early proposal showed a bus link from the end of Orchid Way in Jennyfields, across open space, into the new estate, with a bus gate at each end.
The original proposal, based on an assessment written around 2013
- Jennyfields existing homes; Orchid Way leads towards the planned link
- Bus gate at the end of Orchid Way
- Planned link for buses, walking and cycling, across open space
- Bus gate where the link meets the King Edwin Park estate road
- King Edwin Park the new estate, entered from Penny Pot Lane
-
Two neighbourhoods
Jennyfields is the existing estate to the north; Orchid Way is one of its streets. King Edwin Park, the newer estate, is entered from Penny Pot Lane.
-
A bus gate at each end
The plan marks a “Bus Gate” at the end of Orchid Way and another at the edge of the new housing. A bus gate lets some vehicles through and keeps others out.
-
Buses, walking and cycling. Not cars.
Buses, people on foot or on bikes, and emergency vehicles could use the link. Ordinary cars could not.
Was the bus link required?
The transport assessment, written around 2013, proposed running the Number 3 bus through the link:
“…every 30 minutes a bus will pass along Trefoil Drive and Orchid Way into the site.”
The signed 2015 agreement goes further. It says no more than 342 homes may be occupied until the bus link “has been provided and is operational”, unless the County Council agrees otherwise in writing. The public records reviewed do not show it operating as a bus link. Whether that duty still applies is covered in section 5.
Sources: the proposed Number 3 bus · who could use the link · the 2015 agreement’s bus link
4 · What changed in 2025
What did the 2025 drawings change?
They keep a walking and cycling link, and remove bus access.
On 2 October 2025 the Council approved new drawings for the second part of the estate. The planning officer’s report describes a 3.5-metre path between King Edwin Park and Jennyfields.
On the ground. A walking and cycling connection between King Edwin Park and Orchid Way was observed open in early October 2026. In the Parish Council’s draft minutes of 5 October, a councillor said the return walk uphill from Orchid Way was difficult. This is one person’s report, not an access assessment; the minutes were marked “UNAPPROVED” when checked on 5 November 2026. The public records do not give the path’s opening date or show whether it follows the approved drawings. Its legal status is unclear. It is for walking and cycling, not buses, and does not replace a bus service.
Two sets of plans, not before and after on the ground
-
Buses Removed
Original planPlanned, through a bus gate.Approved drawingsBus access removed.
-
Walking In both
Original planPlanned.Approved drawingsKept in the plans. Officer’s report describes a 3.5 m path.
-
Cycling In both
Original planPlanned.Approved drawingsKept in the plans. Same path.
-
Emergency vehicles Unresolved
Original planAllowed through the gate.Approved drawingsNot stated for this link.
-
Ordinary cars Kept out
Original planNot allowed.Approved drawingsPersimmon says bollards would stop vehicles.
Emergency vehicles: the 2025 officer’s report describes a separate emergency access route between plots 315 and 323, and the ecologist calls the replacement “a less intrusive emergency vehicle access”. Neither says whether emergency vehicles could use the Orchid Way link itself. The record
Plans, not a survey: the chart compares two sets of plans. It does not show what was built. A walking and cycling path was observed open in October 2026; the approved drawings do not allow buses on this link.
Why was bus access removed?
The developer’s account. Persimmon’s 2025 letter says talks with the Council’s Highways team, which advises on roads, showed the link was unsuitable: Orchid Way is a dead-end street dominated by parked cars, and officers thought that would be hard to change. The Highways recommendation or analysis it describes was not located among the published documents.
The ecologist’s comments. The Council’s ecologist supported removing the bus route to protect a local nature site the link crosses. Those comments are about wildlife, not traffic or buses.
Parking and safety on Orchid Way are real practical questions. The published documents do not show whether parking controls, or other ways of keeping bus access, were assessed. A planning officer made the decision on the Council’s behalf; the report records an objection from Killinghall Parish Council and two from the public.
Sources: the 2025 drawings · Persimmon’s explanation · the ecologist’s comments · who decided
5 · What’s decided
What has been decided about the link, and what hasn’t?
Three separate steps. Only the first is decided, and one does not automatically lead to the next.
-
2 October 2025
New drawings approved
Decided
The new drawings for the second part of the estate.
-
Asked for on 5 March 2026
Request to delete Condition 8
Awaiting a decision when checked on 5 November 2026
Condition 8 is part of the planning permission. It says the Council must approve bus-gate details before any connection is made from the estate to Orchid Way. Persimmon has asked to remove this condition through a Section 73 application, which can change an existing permission. Application 26/01380/EIAMAJ.
-
Undated
Changes to the Section 106 agreement
Draft · unsigned, as checked on 5 November 2026
A draft deed, a formal legal document, would remove the “Bus Link” definition and clause 5.2 from the 2015 agreement. No signed deed was found in the documents published for the application.
Solid, hatched and dashed markers show the three statuses; the words say the same thing. Open the 2026 application’s Documents tab (26/01380/EIAMAJ); find “S.73 COVER LETTER” and “DRAFT S106” (both published 18 Mar 2026). Evidence: Condition 8’s wording · the Condition 8 request · the draft deed · the application’s status
One question matters most. The signed 2015 agreement says no more than 342 homes may be lived in until the bus link is “provided and is operational”, unless a written exception is agreed. The public records reviewed so far do not show a signed change to this rule or a written exception. So they cannot tell whether the duty still applies. The clause · what is unresolved
A path was observed open. What approvals applied?
The request to remove Condition 8 was still awaiting a decision when checked on 5 November 2026. Planning-register searches checked on 9 October did not show approval of bus-gate details under that condition. A second condition says walking and cycling links need approval, but does not name Orchid Way; no approval under that condition was found in those searches either. Other approvals may exist outside the published records. This is a question for the Council, not evidence that anything was done wrongly.
Records: Condition 8 · the footpath/cycleway condition · the register search · why this is a question, not a finding
What else does the 2026 application ask for?
The draft deed would also remove a definition about junction works and clause 6.2.17, which it does not explain. The application also proposes changes to highway works in Killinghall and to the BREEAM building-sustainability standard for the community centre and shop.
The Council’s Highways team replied on 15 April 2026 that it had “no local highway authority objections”, but gave no reasons. That short reply does not explain why bus access should be removed. Killinghall Parish Council objected, saying this would “permanently close the door” on a bus route.
The March 2026 site notice gave a comment deadline of 20 April and says later comments “may not be considered”. The last site notice expired on 3 July. As checked on 5 November 2026, the register listed 30 November as both its target date and “agreed expiry date”. It also listed 8 July 2026 as the “determination deadline”, but did not explain why these dates differ. No decision date appeared. Some papers use a different reference number; the Public Access register lists the case as 26/01380/EIAMAJ.
Who pays for the bus, and who decides?
- Developer money
- The 2015 agreement had the developer make five annual payments of £130,000 each, starting when the 60th home was occupied, for the County Council to buy the bus service. How Route 4 is paid for now, and until when, was not found in the public records.
- Council policy
- In 2015, North Yorkshire County Council said it would not pay an operator to run a service more often than once every two hours. A 2024 Council report lists this limit among its criteria. It does not apply to every bus, and the records do not show that it explains Route 4’s timetable.
- Who decides
- The York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority, led by the Mayor, has regional bus powers. The Mayor can hand some of these powers to North Yorkshire Council and City of York Council. In March 2026, North Yorkshire Council’s Executive recommended that the Chief Executive wait until 31 March 2027 before accepting the transfer, while funding and who makes decisions were clarified. The Chief Executive’s final decision was not found in the public records checked. On 2 October 2026, the Combined Authority approved the first step towards a study of bus franchising. Under franchising, it could set bus services for operators to run. The announcement did not mention a change to Route 4.
- New law
- In an enhanced partnership area, the Bus Services Act 2025 says the local transport authority must list bus services people need in its plan. If a listed service is cancelled or changed in a way that harms people’s access, the authority must consider other options. No published list says whether Route 4 is included.
Records: the developer’s payments · the Council’s limit for services it orders · the draft plan’s minimum · the franchising study · all funding and bus-powers records
How were residents told about the plans?
For the 2025 change, the Council’s register records a site notice on 2 April 2025 and a newspaper notice on 10 April. Where the notice was put up is not recorded. The Parish Council and two members of the public objected.
For major applications, national rules require a newspaper notice and either a site notice or letters to neighbours. The register shows the notices, but does not show letters to nearby homes before the decision. For the 2026 request, four site notices went up on 3 June 2026, one of them on Orchid Way.
The recorded notices show the change was publicised. They cannot show how many residents actually knew about it.
Records: the 2025 notice dates · the notice rules · all publicity records
What is still unanswered?
- Whether Route 4 is the “Bus Service” the 2015 agreement describes, and whether a different service was agreed in writing.
- Why Route 4 was cut in 2026, how it is paid for now, and until when.
- Whether the 2015 bus-link duty still applies, and what will happen to Condition 8 and the draft change to the agreement.
- What approvals applied when the path opened, its legal status, and whether emergency vehicles may use it.
- The Highways evidence for removing bus access, the bus operator’s view, and whether parking controls or other options were assessed.
- Whether people living near the link were told directly about the 2025 change.
“Not found” is not the same as “does not exist”: some records may be held elsewhere or not published. Eight open questions, with what the record shows
What next
What would help, and who can you ask?
The bus service and the planned link are separate questions. Each has its own route to an answer.
Improving the bus service
- Who checks whether the estate’s bus meets people’s needs, including people who cannot drive?
- What funding or other arrangement could pay for a more useful service?
- Contact the Combined AuthorityIt leads the regional bus plan. See Who decides.
- The Council’s bus timetables for King Edwin ParkRoute 4 and S3.
- Ask the Council for informationHow to ask for information about public services or the environment.
Scrutinising the planning decisions
- What Highways evidence supports removing bus access, and were parking controls or other options assessed?
- Does the 2015 bus-link duty still apply, and what will happen to Condition 8 and the draft deed?
- What approvals applied when the walking and cycling path opened?
- Killinghall Parish CouncilIt responded to these applications.
- Eight open questions, with what the record showsOn the sources page.